Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Wednesday, Jan. 9, 1889. (Before Captain C, A. Wray, R.M., and H. W. Moore, Esq, J.P.) CIVIL CASKS, T, Taylor v. S. Taylor—Claim £5 lOi; judgment jummons.—Plaintiff did not appear, and no order was made. W. Millar v. G. Farmer—Claim £4 7s 6d. —Mr White for defendant.—Plaintiff did nob appear, and judgment was given for defendant. M. Millard v, H. Parker—Claim £1 Is.— Judgment by default for amount claimed and coats. ASSAULT. John and Frank Ball, father and eon, on remand from Peel Forest, were charged, on the information of Donald McKay, storekeeper at Peel Forest, with having violently assaulted him on Sunday, the 6th inst. Mr F. Wilson Smith appeared for the prosecution, and Mr J.-W. White for the defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Donald McKay, who was eevarely bruised about the face, sworn, stated that on Sunday last the younger prisoner, Frank Bull, came to his store and wanted to pay him some money. He asked Bull to pat it off till Monday, but he preferred to pay it then, and offered him a cheque for £B, out of which witness was to take £3 and give Bull £5 change. Bull owed witness aVaut £6, and witness urged him to pay a larger amount of his account while he had the money in hand. ■ After a deal of grumbling, he agreed to do so, and witness squared the account with the exception of about 30s, and gave Bull the balance of the change. Bull went away, and returned with his father in about ten minutes, when the father demanded the cheque, which witness refused to give up, aud told defendants not to create a disturbance there on Sunday. The father and son then attacked him at the same time 1 because witness would not give up the cheque. They knooked him down and both got on top of him, and his wife then came in from the other room and appealed to them to leave him alone, and not to kill him. Witness told his wife to go and get asristance, which ehe eventually did, by fetching Mr Eoskrudge, schoolmaster. When Boskrudge came the latter called upon the younger prisoner to desist, which he did, and both then left the house, after telling witness that that was only the first instalment of what he might expect at their hands. To Mr Smith; I had my coat on when the row first oimmenoed, but it was off when it finished. I don’t know how it got off, but I fancy they took it off. I found it afterwards some distance away from where the row commenced. Did not take it off myself that lam aware. I was coo dazed with the blows to be very clear upon the point. To the Bench: I was severely bruised about the head, and I believe two of my toes are dislocated as they are very core. Both the defendants hit me. It must have been over 20 times. To Mr White; Frank Bull brought ms the cheque for £B, and told me he wanted to pay me £3 aud £5 change, Did not tell me be wanted the £5 to pay his father. When he offered the £3 I told him his account had been standing a long time and urged him to pay off more of his account. After some grumbling ho agreed to pay off some more. I did nob tell him I would keep the £3 to pay Lorgelly’e account, and he could look to Lorgelly for it. Never mentioned Lorgolly to him. When the father came he did not tell me the £5 belonged to him ; ho simply demanded the cinque. Did not square up to Frank and say “You can take it out of me.” Knew the parties too well for that, and that the more I tried to help myself the worse it would bo for me. Did not tell Frank on the Monday morning that I would kill him yet. Was wearing slippers at the time of the row. Did not break any toes with kicking my assailants.

Mrs McKay, wife of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence as to the attack made upon her husband, and the two prisoners beating him with their fists, knocking him down, and dragging him behind the counter. Witness tried to get them off, but was struck and pushed by the younger prisoner, while the elder took no notice of her. She then ran out but could find nobody, and returned, and all this time defendants were beating her husband. She then ran oyer to Mr Newman’s, where she found Mr Boskrudge, who ran to the shop and called on young Bull to desist in his attack, Oharles Eoskrudge, schoolmaster at Sootsburn, deposed to being called by Mrs McKay to her husband’s assistance, and upon entering the store found McKay behind the counter, leaning against the wall in a dazed manner, Frank Bull was making towards him in a threatening manner, and the father was in the middle of the floor urging him on to attack McKay. Witness called t.> Frank to desist, which ho did, and both prisoners left the place after haying told plaintiff that that was only the first instalment of what he might expect from them. To Mr White t I did not see ft blow struck r while I was in the store. For the defence, Frank Bull stated that ho went to the store with the cheque for £B, and told McKay to take £3 out of it. McKay kept more than was due to him, ftnd only gave witness £2 in change. Never agreed to pay more than £3 off his account. Wanted the other £5 for his father, to whom it was owing by witness. Went’back and told his father afiout the cheque, and they both wont to the store to see if they oould gefc it. McKay came towards him aud said he would not give the cheque, and he could take it out of him, at the same time throwing off his coat and advancing to strike witness, who thereupon struck him. McKay struck witness several times, and alio kicked him. John Bull took no part in the matter, but simply saw fair play, tysfrntfgf pqm e and oallefl witness away, ha went out, Saw McKay the host morning, when he said he would kill witness yet. To Mr Smith j I objected to him keeping the money, but he • would not give it back. Plaintiff’s coat was afterwards found behind the counter. Did not know how it got there, unless it was kicked there in the struggle Did net know that be and his father had a reputation for fighting. His father simply looked on.

John BiUl his son's statement. 'Jhe Becqh considered the evidence fully proved the assault. They did not at all credit the story told by tha defendants as to the younger Bull being challenged. They considered it was a most impudent case of assault for two persons to go into a person’s house to endeavor to obtain money back which bad already been paid. 1 Both the prisoners were sentenced to a month’s imprisonment with hard labor. ILLEO4L BESOPB 01 CATTLE. Maria Fitzgerald was charged on the information of Charles Griffiths, Chairman of the Belfield School Committee, with having illegally rescued six pigs, which plaintiff had seized on tha Belfield school ground, for the purpose of impounding them. Mr "Wilson Smith appeared for plaintiff, and Mr White for defendant. Charles Griffiths, plaintiff, stated that on December 31st last defendant’s pigs had been trespassing on the Belfield school ground, and ho, as Chairman of the Committee, herded them closo to the sohool, and sent word to defendant that she could have them by paying one shilling par head. This she refused to do, and eonl her dog forward afld 1

scattered the pigs in all directions, so that it was impossible to drive them. The pigs had been a nuisance to the Committee for the past four years, but they had refrained taking action until now. As Chairman of the Committee plaintiff was responsible for the proper care of the grounds. Miss Buck, schoolmietres'a rt Belfield, corroborated the statement of witness as to the trespass of the pigs. Alfred Wadsworth stated that the defendant acknowledged to him on January Ist having rescued the pigs from plaintiff. Defendant said the p : ge gob into the schoolground through gaps made by the children going through the fence. . The pigs had been rounded up by her dog of its own accord, as it was in the habit of doing with them. After hearing the evidence, the Bench said they were quite satisfied the pigs had been pounded at the school [grounds, and were taken out of the grounds by defendant. A fine of 20s, with costa —solicitor’s fee £1 Is, and witnesses’ expenses 10s—was imposed, and the Court adjourned.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TEML18890110.2.11

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Temuka Leader, Issue 1839, 10 January 1889, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,494

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Temuka Leader, Issue 1839, 10 January 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Temuka Leader, Issue 1839, 10 January 1889, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert